It seems BoF has removed the page about definition of pistol grip (i.e. imaginary line below exposed trigger etc). It used to be http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/pistolgrip.htm but seems to be gone. Anyone have a copy of that html ?

Cardinal Sin

11-09-2007, 11:42 PM

. . .It has begun . . .

bwiese

11-09-2007, 11:45 PM

It seems BoF has removed the page about definition of pistol grip (i.e. imaginary line below exposed trigger etc). It used to be http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/pistolgrip.htm but seems to be gone. Anyone have a copy of that html ?

That's a discussion, not a definition - some of that may have been developed during hearings in 2000 where SB23 regulations were defined.

The regulatory definition in 11 CCR 5469(d) is what's in force and what's applicable:

"pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon"
means a grip that allows for a pistol style grasp in which the web of the
trigger hand (between the thumb and index finger) can be placed below the
top of the exposed portion of the trigger while firing.

If the diagram you write of addresses the above, fine. If not, it's irrelevant except perhaps to show steps in development of the regulatory definition.

for reference if the above link stop working: http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/pistolgrip.htm

Bobula

11-10-2007, 1:39 AM

The big question is "How does a pistol grip make a firearm more dangerous?"

jumbopanda

11-10-2007, 1:52 AM

The big question is "How does a pistol grip make a firearm more dangerous?"

They supply infinite ammo and turn any gun full auto.

Bobula

11-10-2007, 1:53 AM

They supply infinite ammo and turn any gun full auto.

I was attempting to be serious..

Wyatt

11-10-2007, 2:17 AM

It doesn't. I think it is their attempt to make it look less evil, like making bikers wear a helmet.

adamsreeftank

11-10-2007, 3:46 AM

I was attempting to be serious..

That was your first mistake.

Who ever said any of this makes any sense????

MonsterMan

11-10-2007, 7:41 AM

Supposedly a pistol grip makes firing your rifle from the hip much easier.

I don't know about you but my mini-14 can be fired from them just as easily. Plus it takes the same ammunition and it has a detachable magazine. :rolleyes:

The ban on pistol grips and other features is just a way to ban certain types of rifles that traditionally have these features. They basically wanted to ban "Military" style rifles and only leave "hunting" style rifles available to the public.

How they let the Mini-14 and the M1 Garand and other similar rifles not be banned is what makes me confused. I am so surprised they did not outlaw those rifles as well.

Wulf

11-10-2007, 8:04 AM

I was attempting to be serious..

There's never been any serious legislative explanation for the ban on conspicuously protruding grips.

The closest we've ever seen to an real explanation is a quote from Alison (a DOJ big whig) who said something to the effect that the grips "allow you to shoot rapidly from the hip without reloading" (approximate quote). Other than that piece of solid public safety reasoning we have the gunnie legend that says that way back in the misty pre-history of AW legislation a group of interns tasked by their Anti-gun legislator to figure out what he should ban, got a tour of DOJ's exemplar gun room. These fonts of firearm wisdom, fresh from the law school of Berkeley, and U.C.S.F. noticed that the guns that scared them the most had dangly grips but that the ones without dangly parts and scarry looking forked thingys on the barrel werent so scarry. In fact they kind looked like the rifle their grandfather hunted with and that gun always stayed peacfully under grandpa's bed, only occasionally slaughtering a woodland creature, and so is must be the forked thingies and dangly parts that made a gun likely to go off and kill nuns and orphans. [Side note: this was back in the day when we did not realize that nuns didnt support the idea of killing babies in the womb and so the death of the nuns was not appreciated as the greater good that we now know it to be. Now days you'd have to ban the dangly guns because they might go off and kill Orphans and the doctors that would have aborted them if they had the chance.]

CCWFacts

11-10-2007, 10:15 AM

The people who write this stuff don't even know what they are talking about. McCarthy doesn't know what a barrel shroud is (http://youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U) for example. They basically want to ban anything that looks like an AR-15, AK-47, or TEC-9, or Uzi, but alas there is no legislative way to express that. If they wanted to really express that they would have to say, "no semi-auto rifles", which is what they have done in Australia. Because ultimately a SA rifle, whether it's an AR-15 or a Mini-14 or an M1, they all do the same thing, which is make fast follow-up shots.

Muzz

11-10-2007, 10:20 AM

There's never been any serious legislative explanation for the ban on conspicuously protruding grips.

The closest we've ever seen to an real explanation is a quote from Alison (a DOJ big whig) who said something to the effect that the grips "allow you to shoot rapidly from the hip without reloading" (approximate quote). Other than that piece of solid public safety reasoning we have the gunnie legend that says that way back in the misty pre-history of AW legislation a group of interns tasked by their Anti-gun legislator to figure out what he should ban, got a tour of DOJ's exemplar gun room. These fonts of firearm wisdom, fresh from the law school of Berkeley, and U.C.S.F. noticed that the guns that scared them the most had dangly grips but that the ones without dangly parts and scarry looking forked thingys on the barrel werent so scarry. In fact they kind looked like the rifle their grandfather hunted with and that gun always stayed peacfully under grandpa's bed, only occasionally slaughtering a woodland creature, and so is must be the forked thingies and dangly parts that made a gun likely to go off and kill nuns and orphans. [Side note: this was back in the day when we did not realize that nuns didnt support the idea of killing babies in the womb and so the death of the nuns was not appreciated as the greater good that we now know it to be. Now days you'd have to ban the dangly guns because they might go off and kill Orphans and the doctors that would have aborted them if they had the chance.]

Forked thingies and dangly parts!!! LOL!

Shotgun Man

11-10-2007, 10:54 AM

Forked thingies and dangly parts!!! LOL!

Yeah, I found that funny too. Does wulf have links or references to the origin of this "gunnie legend"?

bwiese

11-10-2007, 12:58 PM

How they let the Mini-14 and the M1 Garand and other similar rifles not be banned is what makes me confused. I am so surprised they did not outlaw those rifles as well.

Because those, along with M1A, were popular match guns and they knew they'd never get Roberti-Roos thru with those banned, so they let those slide.

The "duck hunters" and "30 caliber idiots" (as I call 'em) weren't affected and went on to spout off how they didn't need black rifles for hunting or competition.

Appears some of those same folks got popped for subsequent SB23 violations - "M1A guy", as an example - not realizing that Roberti-Roos set the framework for SB23 (and that there was a fair a chance SB23 wouldn't pass if R/R framework were not already extant).

Calguns2000

11-10-2007, 6:24 PM

How they let the Mini-14 and the M1 Garand and other similar rifles not be banned is what makes me confused. I am so surprised they did not outlaw those rifles as well.They've caught on to this and the Mini-14 and the M1A / M-14 will not be overlooked when the next round of AW bans are proposed.

Sam Hainn

11-10-2007, 6:46 PM

....The closest we've ever seen to an real explanation is a quote from Alison (a DOJ big whig) who said something to the effect that the grips "allow you to shoot rapidly from the hip without reloading" (approximate quote)....

Ummm, well they do!

I attached a pistol grip to my balls and my girlfriend got pregnant with sextuplets! Talk about shooting rapidly from the hip! Blew the condom to smithereens!

MonsterMan

11-10-2007, 7:02 PM

They've caught on to this and the Mini-14 and the M1A / M-14 will not be overlooked when the next round of AW bans are proposed.

Actually I was talking to Iggy about that last year. He said that they would ban the Mini-14 and M1 next time. That was before they lost power to add to the list.

Experimentalist

11-10-2007, 8:20 PM

Ummm, well they do!

I attached a pistol grip to my balls and my girlfriend got pregnant with sextuplets! Talk about shooting rapidly from the hip! Blew the condom to smithereens!

:cowboy: :rofl2:

Stormfeather

11-10-2007, 8:30 PM

It doesn't. I think it is their attempt to make it look less evil, like making bikers wear a helmet.

Darn Bikers, riff raff, the whole group of evil bikers! I say we pull them all over and give them tickets till they cant afford to ride those death machines anymore. . .

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l128/Strmfeathr/Helmet2.jpg

bwiese

11-10-2007, 8:34 PM

Actually I was talking to Iggy about that last year. He said that they would ban the Mini-14 and M1 next time. That was before they lost power to add to the list.

That's Iggy. He knows sh*t for politics. I think he was passing that around as scare tactics to reduce interest in OLL stuff.

Frankly we woulda been better off in past years if attempts to ban Min14s and M1As were included, that'd get the 'hunter' types off their arses.

Rumpled

11-11-2007, 2:41 AM

I think we all know the only way that the AW bans have been passed is that granpas/FUD's old Garand and M1A were allowed. The WWII/Korea block of vets was just too big and connected to go against.
Give enough time for granpappy to pass (like about now), and they'll work harder to ban those also.